Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--]

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott
`- Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott

1
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--]

<tikte4$1u9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9943&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9943

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: none...@beez-waxes.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider [--Ben agrees--]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:53:24 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tikte4$1u9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ikH1L.623536$iiS8.264549@fx17.iad>
<ti7g4u$1jb5g$1@dont-email.me> <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
<875ygol9nk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ti9hs6$1r9c6$1@dont-email.me>
<87wn93imhx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiio6t$3cg9h$2@dont-email.me>
<Eva3L.440910$SAT4.151365@fx13.iad> <87v8oilbiy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="63802"; posting-host="/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:53 UTC

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>
>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However, H(P,P)
>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>
>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>
>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>
> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>
> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
> one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but
> *D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly*
> *determine this silly criterion* (*in this one case*) so H is a POOH decider
> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
> is also undecidable in general).
>

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
*correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
*unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--]

<tiktgh$3i0ka$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9944&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9944

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider [--Ben agrees--]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:54:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <tiktgh$3i0ka$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ikH1L.623536$iiS8.264549@fx17.iad>
<ti7g4u$1jb5g$1@dont-email.me> <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
<875ygol9nk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ti9hs6$1r9c6$1@dont-email.me>
<87wn93imhx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiio6t$3cg9h$2@dont-email.me>
<Eva3L.440910$SAT4.151365@fx13.iad> <87v8oilbiy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tikte4$1u9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:54:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="99fb4b4c8532d657838ebd3e797ebed3";
logging-data="3736202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PfTfhAxrbULdhD4YpPY2Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+LjRnySfNn/dJ/644uyuWMiANWI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <tikte4$1u9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: olcott - Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:54 UTC

On 10/17/2022 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't
>>>>>> find my
>>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However,
>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>>
>>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>>
>> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>>
>> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
>> one no one cares about.  D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but
>> *D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly*
>> *determine this silly criterion* (*in this one case*) so H is a POOH
>> decider
>> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
>> is also undecidable in general).
>>
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>

I can't get Ben's comment to line wrap correctly.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor